National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Bill

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Priti Patel

2nd reading
Thursday 30th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is right about that; his observation is spot-on. He will recall that, as I said in my opening remarks, when we have been in this Chamber to discuss important fiscal and economic measures, it has more often than not been to a full House. It is appalling that when the Government are backing working people and doing the right thing for them by putting more money in their pockets, the Opposition are all hiding. They are failing to recognise something that their constituents will benefit from. The Opposition should be giving a positive voice and supporting it, because it means more jobs and growth in every constituency across the country. As parliamentarians, we should all welcome that.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

rose—

Public Order

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Priti Patel

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The answer is very simple: we are the ones getting on and doing the job, and I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to our amazing police officers for their courage and their bravery in keeping us all safe. On far right activity, does she agree with the words of the head of the Metropolitan police anti-terror unit, who says that the far right is the “fastest-growing terrorist threat” facing our country, and if she does, what specific steps are we taking to challenge that threat?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the issue of far right terror. This has evolved in recent years —that is a complete fact—and we have seen all sorts of terror attacks in the UK carried out specifically by lone actors associated with this dreadful, hateful and corrosive ideology. Various activities are taking place, much of which is being worked on through agencies that work with the Home Office; significant investments have been put in place by the Home Office, but also with our agencies. I would be more than happy to provide further details to my hon. Friend, because this is a growing trend, and that is exactly why we have been investing very heavily in this area.

Public Services

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Priti Patel

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

When it comes to criminality and the justice system, it is important to reflect that every case is looked at on a case-by-case basis—that is the purpose of the system. At the same time, it is important to ensure that victims of crime get justice and that the perpetrators of crime are given the appropriate sanctions.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s no-nonsense approach. I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and I prosecuted cases before I came into Parliament. I welcome the joined-up approach of having not only enough extra police officers, but an extra £85 million for the Crown Prosecution Service, so when individuals are brought to account they can quickly go through the justice system, which will ensure that those who should be acquitted are acquitted and that others are sentenced for their crime.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is correct, because it is vital to have a criminal justice system and a Crown Prosecution Service that work to drive the right outcomes. Resources do matter.

As we leave the EU, the public want to know that we are enhancing our co-operation with international partners, particularly in bringing foreign criminals to justice, and that their Government, and no one else, have full control over the borders of our nation. That will end the free movement of people once and for all.

In the three months since the Government came to power, we have begun urgent work, particularly on supporting the police. All hon. Members on this side of the House agree that our police forces are the best in the world. Every day, we see examples of their professionalism, bravery and dedication. No matter how good they are, however, they can do their job only if they are supported. Officers on the frontline need to know that they have a Prime Minister, a Home Secretary and a Government who stand beside them, and that when they run towards danger, they are not alone. This Prime Minister, and this Government, will always back the police.

Gypsy and Traveller Planning

Debate between Rehman Chishti and Priti Patel

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Weir. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has granted this debate, and I am thrilled to see so many colleagues here who clearly have a similar interest in the subject. That demonstrates the extent of the significant problems with the issue across the country.

It has been seven months since the debate on 7 December about Gypsy and Traveller sites. Given the Government’s decision to extend until August the consultation on the proposed new planning circulars on Traveller sites, this is an opportune moment to discuss the matter directly with the Minister—I am grateful for his time.

The issue has taken on additional importance in the county of Essex after the decision to evict the occupants of Dale farm, a large site in Basildon. The decision could have a knock-on effect as those evicted seek places to live in other parts of Essex, and probably across the east of England. This is likely to be the last opportunity to debate the matter in Parliament before the consultation period ends, so I know that the Minister will listen closely to the views expressed and the representations made today.

I have a constituency interest in the subject. During the past 14 months, I have heard about several cases of significant concern about the planning system for Gypsy and Traveller sites. Those cases have involved the Planning Inspectorate overturning the decisions of local authorities and granting permission for unauthorised sites. Although I appreciate that those incidents were caused by the inadequate planning system that was inherited from the previous Labour Government—a system that epitomised their culture of top-down targets, particularly through the infamous planning circulars 01/06 and 04/07—this is an opportunity to get it right. People throughout the country have put their faith in the Government to rebalance the planning system through the localism agenda, and it is imperative that the Government do not let them down, so they must take prompt and significant action.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. On her point about the top-down culture, the Medway local authority was faced with a regional body saying that we had to take an extortionate quota of Gypsy and Traveller sites, which was completely wrong. I urge the Minister to take on board the fact that it is absolutely right and proper for residents and local authorities to be able to determine need where it arises, rather than having a quota imposed on them.

[Priti Patel]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. I will mention some local examples before I move to the substantial points to which I would like to draw the Minister’s attention.

The Minister will be aware from a vast amount of correspondence that I have several such sites in my constituency, including Pattiswick. A few weeks ago, the Planning Inspectorate decided to impose a Gypsy site on Pattiswick retrospectively. The site has been an unauthorised development since last autumn, when the occupants arrived—this might sound familiar to colleagues—over a weekend, which is the time when local authorities are least able to respond. The local community in Pattiswick then came together to press Braintree district council to take action. I pay tribute to the local residents of Pattiswick, who worked hard and rallied a lot of resources to start a good campaign. Dozens of letters were sent by members of the community and a petition was started opposing the development. That petition received widespread support, and in the absence of a planning application, Braintree district council began enforcement proceedings against the occupants of the site.

The case went to the High Court. The council had some success in the Court, but the occupants of the site appealed to the Planning Inspectorate against the original enforcement action. A subsequent hearing with the Planning Inspectorate took place in Braintree during the Whitsun recess. I attended it, and I must say that it was quite an eye opener and an education. Although the occupants had shown absolutely no regard for the planning process, the inspectorate gave them planning permission.

Two reasons were given for the decision. First, the inspectorate claimed that permission had to be granted due to a lack of any suitable alternative sites. It then concluded that unless the occupants continued to live on the site, their human rights would be violated. The inspectorate wrote that the

“dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect upon the rights of the appellants under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights”,

which deals with the right to a private and family life. According to the inspectorate, requiring the appellants to vacate the site

“would represent a significant interference with their home and family life which…outweighs the limited harm caused by the development in terms of its effect upon the public interest.”

However, it is clear to me that any disruption caused to the occupants by requiring them to leave would be no more than the disruption that they caused themselves when they came and occupied the site in the first place. Such a use of the European convention on human rights is clearly misplaced and wrong.

It is wholly unjust to local residents of Pattiswick that although the Planning Inspectorate gave significant weight to what it felt were the human rights of the occupants, it failed—colleagues will not be surprised to hear this—adequately to consider the rights of the local settled community and the disruption that the incident caused them. Although the council did the right thing in supporting the community through an enforcement action, the planning system ultimately failed the community by favouring people who refused to go through the correct planning process to occupy and develop the site, and who then chose deliberately to play the system and cause maximum cost and disruption to the council and community.

Braintree district council contacted me yesterday, because I asked for the figures on how much the incident cost. The council has racked up considerable costs. Including VAT, the fees for counsel for the High Court injunction came to just under £10,000. The cost of getting the injunction was £20,000, and fees relating to obtaining the breach of stop notice were £14,000. We should not forget that that is hard-pressed taxpayers’ money. Not only did the decision run roughshod over local people’s views, but the costs involved will deter local councils from taking action when other unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller sites appear.